The history of the Gender Recognition actand Labour's role

[AdamRyan]

There have been lots of threads recently about Labour's position on gender and their role in the GRA. A poster on another thread made a slightly off topic point that I thought deserved a thread of its own. Please scroll on past or hide this thread if you aren't interested in discussing further!

Thanks to @bigcoatlady....

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 only allows people to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate if they have two written reports by medical professionals confirming that they have lived in their affirmed gender for two years as well as evidence of any medical treatment they have undergone. There is no requirement for a GRC to be issued that the applicant has undergone surgery, the reason for this is the original bill introduced by Labour restricted GRCs only to those who had received surgery and this was removed in the Lords by Tory peers uncomfortable with the requirement that 'men' undergo surgical removal of the penis.

That much is ancient history. Less than 5000 people in the UK have a GRC.

In 2015 the Home Office launched a proposal to remove the costly and time-consuming medical assessment of applications for gender recognition in favour of self-ID. This was a Tory proposal from a Tory government. They have since reversed their position on it but it was never a Labour proposal.

The Equality Act 2010 has always made it possible to exclude trans women from women only competitive sports (s.195), women only services (sch 3), all women shortlists(s104(7)), communal accommodation (sch23), women only associations (sch16) and job requirements (sch 9).

As a result employers who want to recruit a woman but not a transwoman to a role such as 'rape crisis counsellor' have always been able to do so. If a rape crisis service wanted to offer rape crisis group therapy ONLY to women and not trans women they are entirely permitted to do so. If a domestic violence refuge (and I have chaired the board of trustees of a housing charity which offers refuge services for many years) wants to only accommodate women and not trans women it can do so.

Services such as Survivors Network are choosing to include transwomen in their service for whatever reasons but there is no legal obligation on them to do this.

Even had the Tory proposals to permit self-ID gone ahead it was never proposed that the law be changed further to reduce the protection for women only spaces in the Equality Act.

You can call that a gender ideology scandal if you like but its pretty tame.

There is another scandal. During those fifteen years, those of us who have been scrabbling to fund frontline services have been hard hit by austerity. In the city my charity operates in the women-led charities which delivered refuge services went to the wall in the first round of austerity. By 2015 we had no DV refuges at all. Our Rape Crisis nearly went bust and is currently closed to new referrals. We are not a women only provider but we started to offer specialist accommodation for women at risk of homelessness 8 yrs ago because of the massive demand. Women leaving violent partners were becoming street homeless and ending up in hostels surrounded by aggressive mean with drug issues due to the shortage of safe accommodation.

Two years ago the govt did create a statutory duty on councils to urgently accommodate households leaving DV BUT by then it was too bloody late, the good charities had already sold up their properties and moved on. The sector has been ripped apart by the last fifteen years

This is a bigger scandal than the GRA.

They cover Labour and the Tories, which is all that is really relevant here.

I assumed you didn't know the law because you made a number of statements about the law that were incorrect in your earlier post. I just gave you the correct information.

If you think anything I have said is incorrect do correct me.

There are more ways to fuck a woman over than by denying her an abortion.

Undoubtedly, but "every other conceivable way" was not truthful, was it?

Not if you’re going to be pedantically literal, no.

Many, if not most of these are not seeking medical attention or to physiologically transition and therefore do not fall within the definition of 'gender reassignment' for the purposes of the EA. Their 'transition' is purely social.

I'm not sure this is accurate.

From the EHRC Code of Practice

2.19 Under the Act ‘gender reassignment’ is a personal process (that is, moving away from one’s birth sex to the preferred gender), rather than a medical process.

2.20 The reassignment of a person’s sex may be proposed but never gone through; the person may be in the process of reassigning their sex ; or the process may have happened previously. It may include undergoing the medical gender reassignment treatments, but it does not require someone to undergo medical treatment in order to be protected.

(Edited as I omitted this)

2.21 This broad, non-medical definition is particularly important for gender variant children: although some children do reassign their gender while at school, there are others who are too young to make such a decision. Nevertheless they may have begun a personal process of changing their gender identity and be moving away from their birth sex. Manifestations of that personal process, such as mode of dress, indicate that a process is in place and they will be protected by the Act.

Well it is rather relevant.

Various Conservative campaigners currently campaigning to tighten abortion laws

Liam Fox:
https://www.liamfox.co.uk/news/sir-liam-fox-mp-calls-change-outdated-and-discriminative-abortion-law

Miriam Cates:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/28/decriminalising-abortion-will-fuel-diy-warns-miriam-cates/#:~:text=Ms%20Cates%20blamed%20the%20rise,have%20since%20been%20made%20permanent.

Caroline Ansell:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/10/more-premature-babies-surviving-reduce-abortion-time-limit/

And a further handy list here:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3511/stages/18470/amendments/10012565

Given the creeping Americanisation of elements of the Conservative party, I would not take anything for granted regarding our reproductive rights.

Not really. Other parties are available.
That's the kind of statement that makes very Labour -critical posters like yourself seem pro-Tory.

Nah. Absolutely no appetite for it.

1. None of the other available parties can actually win an election under FPTP.
2. All the other centre/left parties are as batshit as Labour on this issue.

We all know single sex services are legal in certain cases. Politicans talk about the importance of single sex spaces, and i believe Starmer means sex as i do when he says that.

What im questioning is 'how' with the laws we have and the promotion of gender ideology.

Once men have female id - passports and birth certificates, and while politicans are talking about marginalisation of trans people and the importance of their inclusion, that TWAW, how many organisations can, in practice, exclude men from womens spaces?

A women and a man can rock up to the same provider, with the same id. If they mistakenly exclude a women from the service, or exclude a man, the negative publicity could damage them either way.

I know men have always had female passports, but its the promotion of gender ideology that has lead people to believe that TWAW that was never the case before. Now eddie izzard can join a queue for the womens toilet and nobody says anything - we know from his autobiography that he didnt get away with that years before.

Some tory politicians are starting to understand and making moves to unravel it. Starmer is still trying to do two conflicting things - promote the idea that TWAW and have women only space. That hasnt worked over that last few years, so whats he going to do to make it work?

So just to be clear, you say we can trust that Labour won't take further steps to prioritise the desires of trans identifying men over the needs and protections of women, even though some of their MPs openly support doing exactly this, becase it's not in their manifesto, but we can't trust that the Tories won't reduce abortion rights because, even though it's not in their manifesto, some of their MPs openly support doing exactly this?

And the creeping Americanisation of elements of the Tory party means we can't take women's rights for granted, but women concerned that the creeping Americanisation of the Labour party means we can't take women's rights for granted are checks notes "pro-Tory/Reform posters pretending to be feminists"?

👏

🙄
You need to read the context. I was replying to PP: It's not like in America, where the ones who know what a woman is want to take away their right to have an abortion.
I was pointing out that some of the "ones who know what a woman is" here are trying to erode reproductive rights.

I haven't seen the evidence of links between the US left wing and the UK left wing that I have for the Conservatives. But that's not entirely surprising because the US left is closer to a traditional UK Conservative than to Labour.

twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1662061344814768129

You also omit 2.22 which says that the protected characteristic only arises if and when the person proposes to undergo the gender reassignment process although that process does not need to be medical and it does not need to be completed.

As a result young gender fluid and non binary people who have no intention of reassigning their gender arguably don't fall within the scope of the EA as worded. Some critics have argued staunchly for inclusion of non binary and gender fluid identities in law but others equally argue that to do so would miss the point.

What I understand from talking to my non gender and gender fluid colleagues and clients is that their self construct really cannot relate to binary sex categories and that discrimination in this context makes little sense as there is no meaningful comparator class. They are neither more or less male or female and cannot relate to those categories at a personal level and thus whilst they might perceive discrimination on the basis of their non-binary they would not be able to interpret sex based discrimination as it relates to them. That's confusing to me as a woman but since almost everyone I work with is neurodiverse - clients and staff - being confused is my normal. It would suggest as a vehicle for rights protection the EA as worded is less inclusive of current gender identities than might be assumed.

[On children you are right - the CoP is clearly highly inclusive of gender variant behaviour in children which creates it's own set of issues because gender variant behaviour isn't usually an indication of an intention to undergo gender reassignment in children. More recent DfE draft guidance on 'gender questioning' children in schools takes the opposite approach but will struggle with the fact that the latter is non statutory and the former is statutory. It was reported at the time the Depts own lawyers had pointed this out to them.]

Better late than never Labour justice secretary.. Now what will Kier do? Move her sideways / ignore her / realise (rather, admit) that she is correct, and state his updated ‘beliefs’?

Extract:

Asked about whether she had broader concerns about freedom of speech on social media, particularly regarding debates on gender, Ms Mahmood said: “Hashtag movements are sometimes used to shut down debate and often many women have had to go to court, usually in employment tribunals, in order to clarify their rights to free speech..

“To clarify their right to believe that for example because you referenced JK Rowling, clarify their right to say that biological sex is real and is immutable – a position that I also agree with.

“But they shouldn’t be in the position of losing their jobs for having views that are perfectly legal, and that they are perfectly entitled to express.”

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/shadow-justice-secretary-agrees-with-jk-rowling-over-gender-critical-views/ar-AA1ntt5J

..

AdamRyan
I haven't seen the evidence of links between the US left wing and the UK left wing that I have for the Conservatives.

Keir Starmer attended a 'progressive' international leaders summit in Montreal last year - will that do instead?

... including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the former Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister of Norway, Jonas Gahr Støre, the former Prime Minister of Finland, Sanna Marin, and the leader of the UK Labour Party, Keir Starmer

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/progressive-international-leaders-gather-in-montreal-for-summit-1.6564380

It's not quite the sane as attending various pro-Trump, MAGA type conferences with the likes of Orban, and Meloni, as well as various far right "personalities" who've expressed anti-gay, racist and fascist sentiments, no.

Liz Truss was very positive towards Steve Bannon at CPAC, when Bannon said Tommy Robinson was a hero, for example.

Shabana Mahmood has been GC for ages as shadow justice Secretary. I doubt he's going to do anything.

Unlike Lusa Nandy who was demoted for her TWAW stance.

How will you feel if Mordaunt becomes leader of the Conservatives?

Of course I read the context. That is why you said what you said. What you said is clearly that Tories with views not in the maifesto are a threat to women's rights, a possibility you have repeatedly ridiculed not just on this thtead but again and again when women apply it to Labour. Double standards Adam.

I haven't seen the evidence of links between the US left wing and the UK left wing that I have for the Conservatives Genuine question - have you looked? As a broadly old school Liberal I've seen the culture wars and rhetoric of US politics increasingy informing and inflaming the authoritarian elements of the UK Left wing just as must as the authoritarian elements of the UK Right wing.

I'm still confused as to your point. I've said numerous times if women don't want to vote Labour, their choice. I'm talking about why I will.

Yes Ive looked. Not seen anything. And given the best clav could come up with was a conference with Ardern and Trudeau I'm not too worried. Feel free to find me some info - although I know about Watson who's donated to Labour, so no need to bring him up. He's donated peanuts compared to the Tory donors but nothing like a good squirrel to distract everyone.

Looking forward to seeing the links

Now I'm confused, because the post I quoted wasn't talking about why you will vote Labour. In fact, it didn't mention Labour at all. It was entirely concerned with the Conservatives.

Now I'll be honest here, I don't think you are confused about my point at all. I think you just can't acknowledge it because then you would have to admit to your double standards.

And of course that's ok when it comes to your vote. I'm not insisting that you have to have consistent criteria for your decisions. I was just surprised to see you applying that logic when you have previously and more than once rejected it when other women apply it to Labour.

However if you genuinely are still confused don't worry, just let me know and I will point it out to you next time you do it :)

Oh BTW I think you've misunderstood my point about the influence of the US Left. If you read my post properly you'll see I was talking about the social and cultural influence of US Left Wing rhetoric not some sort of backroom deal.

I doubt he's going to do anything.

On that we agree.

With reference to your comment about Mordaunt potentially becoming leader of the Conservatives… stop blathering extraneous what ifs.